CaliforniaBear
Junior Member
What is the name of your state? California
I want to argue in court that the 22350 VC ticket I got (with laser gun) was a speed trap. I made a copy of the Engineering and Traffic Survey page for the road where the stop occurred. Do I have to certify this copy to bring it to court? If yes, do I have to certify the whole survey or is that page enough?
I checked the survey and the 85th percentile is 40.7 mph. According to the CA traffic manual, the posted speed should be 40 mph, but it's 35 mph. The city is allowed to reduce it to 35 mph if the engineer provides a justification in the Survey, based on factors not readily apparent to the driver.
The CA traffic manual provides 2 examples of such justification. One is a 2 pages long articulate explanation, the other is 1 page long (should I bring these to court?). The survey does not have any articulate explanation, only 4 keywords which I list below followed by my refutal.
A. On street parking. Parked cars are readily apparent to the driver. In fact the nearby road has on-street parking and has a 40 mph posted limit.
B. Bus route. Buses are larger-than-cars vehicles which are readily apparent to the driver. In fact, the nearby road has a bus route and a 40 mph posted limit.
C. Midblock crosswalks. There are no midblock crosswalks (I intend to print google maps if the judge wants to check this).
D. Horizontal curve. The road is straight except the last part after an intersection has a curve, which should really be part of the next speed zone. Regardless, the CA code 22358.5 states that road curvatures are readily apparent to the driver.
[22358.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.] (should I bring this to court? I imagine the judge knows it.)
The accident rate on the survey is 1.78 (the survey also says the expected accident rate is 3.55). This accident rate does not appear very high and the engineer does not even list it in the "not readily apparent" keywords.
It is my understanding that the prosecution actually has the burden of proof of providing the survey, but I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to ask for a dismissal if the officer does not bring one, instead of simply arguing that the survey is incorrect (even though I believe some very old case law dismissed a ticket as the prosecution did not provide a certified copy of the survey).
I think People vs Goulet is the case that agreed that the court is entitled to disagree with the engineering survey. Should I cite this to the judge, or just state the argument and expect the judge to know the relevant case law? (should I bring a copy of this case to court?)
At the end of my argument, does it make any sense to say "If the court disagrees I ask the court to consider my clear driving record of 16+ years, the clear conditions of the road (should I question the officer about this? as there was no car traffic and no pedestrian traffic) and allow me to take traffic school." Or, am I allowed to talk to the judge again to ask that, if the judge gives a guilty verdict?
I could try trial by written declaration first, but I thought writing the whole list above might put me at a disadvantage if I end up going to court with a trial de novo, as the prosecution might read it.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and provide your feedback!
EDIT: I had mistakenly written crossroads instead of crosswalks.
I want to argue in court that the 22350 VC ticket I got (with laser gun) was a speed trap. I made a copy of the Engineering and Traffic Survey page for the road where the stop occurred. Do I have to certify this copy to bring it to court? If yes, do I have to certify the whole survey or is that page enough?
I checked the survey and the 85th percentile is 40.7 mph. According to the CA traffic manual, the posted speed should be 40 mph, but it's 35 mph. The city is allowed to reduce it to 35 mph if the engineer provides a justification in the Survey, based on factors not readily apparent to the driver.
The CA traffic manual provides 2 examples of such justification. One is a 2 pages long articulate explanation, the other is 1 page long (should I bring these to court?). The survey does not have any articulate explanation, only 4 keywords which I list below followed by my refutal.
A. On street parking. Parked cars are readily apparent to the driver. In fact the nearby road has on-street parking and has a 40 mph posted limit.
B. Bus route. Buses are larger-than-cars vehicles which are readily apparent to the driver. In fact, the nearby road has a bus route and a 40 mph posted limit.
C. Midblock crosswalks. There are no midblock crosswalks (I intend to print google maps if the judge wants to check this).
D. Horizontal curve. The road is straight except the last part after an intersection has a curve, which should really be part of the next speed zone. Regardless, the CA code 22358.5 states that road curvatures are readily apparent to the driver.
[22358.5. It is the intent of the Legislature that physical conditions such as width, curvature, grade and surface conditions, or any other condition readily apparent to a driver, in the absence of other factors, would not require special downward speed zoning, as the basic rule of section 22350 is sufficient regulation as to such conditions.] (should I bring this to court? I imagine the judge knows it.)
The accident rate on the survey is 1.78 (the survey also says the expected accident rate is 3.55). This accident rate does not appear very high and the engineer does not even list it in the "not readily apparent" keywords.
It is my understanding that the prosecution actually has the burden of proof of providing the survey, but I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to ask for a dismissal if the officer does not bring one, instead of simply arguing that the survey is incorrect (even though I believe some very old case law dismissed a ticket as the prosecution did not provide a certified copy of the survey).
I think People vs Goulet is the case that agreed that the court is entitled to disagree with the engineering survey. Should I cite this to the judge, or just state the argument and expect the judge to know the relevant case law? (should I bring a copy of this case to court?)
At the end of my argument, does it make any sense to say "If the court disagrees I ask the court to consider my clear driving record of 16+ years, the clear conditions of the road (should I question the officer about this? as there was no car traffic and no pedestrian traffic) and allow me to take traffic school." Or, am I allowed to talk to the judge again to ask that, if the judge gives a guilty verdict?
I could try trial by written declaration first, but I thought writing the whole list above might put me at a disadvantage if I end up going to court with a trial de novo, as the prosecution might read it.
Thanks for taking the time to read this and provide your feedback!
EDIT: I had mistakenly written crossroads instead of crosswalks.
Last edited:
